Lexis Advance®Research

Help

Narrow By:

U.S.Federal All | None

By Court

By Circuit

States & Territories All | None

International

You have selected to initially view your results in Cases. You can change this in Settings.
    You have not saved any favorite filters or sources.
  • < Previous Showing 1 of 3 Next >

    Court

    An office vested with the judicial power of a state. A court is a legal office of a government vested with the power to adjudicate disputes, to issue orders to officials and to citizens requiring them to comply with laws and its orders, and to order remedies for public or private failings to conform to the laws.

    Read more at: 

    Is this information useful?

    Loading

Sort by:

Legend

Size = Times Cited

Color = Jurisdiction

Supreme

Circuit

District

Other Federal

State

Connection = Citing Relationship

Connection Color = Treatment

Warning

Caution

Questioned

Positive

Vertical Position = Relevance

Cases (10,000+)

    • Shepard's data loading...

    ×

    CRB summary

    Processing...
    1. 1. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Ashcroft v. Iqbal

      Overview: A detainee who was designated a person "of high interest" to the September 11 investigation had his claims against a former U.S. Attorney General and the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation dismissed because his complaint did not make his claims of invidious discrimination plausible as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

      ... Twombly retired the Conley no-set-of-facts test relied upon by the District Court, the Court of Appeals' opinion discussed at length how to apply this Court 's "standard for assessing the adequacy of pleadings." 490 F.3d at ...... Final Judgment Rule Immunity From Liability, Federal Officials HN3 A district court decision denying a Government officer's claim of qualified immunity can fall ...... litigation. Provided it turns on an issue of law, a district- court order denying qualified immunity conclusively determines that the defendant must bear ...... the context of qualified-immunity claims is well established; and a district court 's order rejecting qualified immunity at the motion-to-dismiss stage of a ...... the meaning of 28 U.S.C.S. § 1291 . [3] A district- court decision denying a Government officer's claim of qualified immunity can fall ...... that Twombly demands. Twombly does not require a court at the motion-to-dismiss stage to consider whether the factual allegations are ...... probably true. We made it clear, on the contrary, that a court must take the allegations as true, no matter how skeptical the court may be. See 550 U.S., at 555 , ...

    2. 2. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      Lane v. Pellissier

      Overview: An appeal by appellants was dismissed because they did not file notice of appeals within the statutory period and the trial court clerk's errors did not extend the court's jurisdiction by indiscretion or estoppel.

      ... the appellate jurisdiction of this court. Its solution depends on the facts presented. The trial court could not by the entry of the order correcting the records deprive this court of its power on the present motion to determine its own ...... and the same showing were attempted to be made in this court as was made in the trial court on the motion to correct the record, I hesitate to believe that this court would do the appellants the injustice of dismissing their appeals when ...... appeals, on the unimpeached record of the clerk of the Superior Court . Rather would it be held, I apprehend, that, in the ...... nature of a collateral attack upon the record of the trial court and would necessarily have to be denied. Furthermore, the right of ...... Appellants sought review of a decision the trial court, and respondents filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. The court granted respondents' motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the ...... limit set by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 939 . The court ruled that the trial court properly removed all clouds from the entry of judgment and declared the correct date of judgment. The court also held that the trial ...

    3. 3. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Estate of Hultin

      Overview: Timely notice of a motion to correct an error in a judgment was a jurisdictional requirement and thus, the witnessed will proponents' appeal from the challenged judgment was dismissed. The other orders appealed from were properly before the court.

      ... was dismissed. The other orders appealed from were properly before the court. The witnessed will proponents challenged three orders issued by the lower court . The holographic will proponents filed motions to dismiss all three ...... errors simply were not sufficient to render their appeals invalid. The court agreed in part and disagreed in part with the witnessed will proponents' argument. The court found that, the timely filing of a notice of intent to ...... the appeal. Concerning the valid perfection of the other challenges, the court found that the attorney who signed the appeal papers had a ...... a sufficient connection with the case to properly sign them. The court dismissed the appeal from the judgment but denied the motion to ...... to dismiss the appeal from the first and third order. The court issues and order restraining the trial court from compelling compliance with the third order....... The witnessed will proponents challenged three orders issued by the lower court . The holographic will proponents filed motions to dismiss all three ...... errors simply were not sufficient to render their appeals invalid. The court agreed in part and disagreed in part with the witnessed will proponents' argument. The court found that, the timely filing of a notice of intent to ...

    4. 4. Warning: Negative treatment is indicated

      Jackson v. Jackson

      Overview: A notice of appeal by a wife in her action against her husband to set aside a property settlement was invalid where it was not signed by her or her counsel of record.

      ... aside a prior property settlement agreement with the husband. The trial court granted judgment in favor of the husband. Prior to serving the ...... The husband filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, and the court granted the motion. A notice of appeal was required to be ...... Because the notice was not properly filed it was invalid. The court granted the motion to dismiss field by the husband in the ...... The foregoing rule is too firmly established to justify this court in questioning its controlling effect. In the Harrigan case, supra , the court said: "We do not consider the question [that the notice must ...... signed by the attorney of record] an open one in this court." In the Starkweather case, supra , the Supreme Court was asked to overrule some of the preceding cases on the ground that they establish a harsh rule, but the court refused to do so. It is true that the authorities hold ...... Motions for New Trials Appeals, Notice of Appeal Reviewability of Lower Court Decisions, Timing of Appeals Courts, Clerks of Court Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations HN2 The right of appeal is ...... In the case last cited it is said: "The court is concerned in such cases not with whether the client is ...

    5. 5. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Johnson v. United States

      Overview: Where defendant pled guilty to being felon in possession of firearm and received prison term under ACCA, imposing increased sentence under 18 U.S.C.S. § 924(e)(2)(B)'s residual clause violated Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process because residual clause did not survive prohibition of vague criminal laws.

      ... Supreme Court 's views concerning validity, construction, and application of recidivist statutes authorizing ...... sentence for repeat offender. 161 L. Ed. 2d 1189 . Supreme Court's views as to precedential weight of Supreme Court memorandum decision affirming lower federal court judgment on appeal or summarily dismissing appeal from state court. 139 L. Ed. 2d 979 . Supreme Court 's views as to propriety, under Federal Constitution, of using, as ...... Court ’s remaining reasons for adopting the categorical approach cannot justify an ...... an interpretation that renders the residual clause unconstitutional. While the Taylor Court feared that a conduct-specific approach would unduly burden the courts, experience has shown that application of the categorical approach has not always been easy. Indeed, the Court ’s main argument for overturning the statute is that this approach ...... offenses. This emphasis on convictions indicates that Congress intended the sentencing court to look only to the fact that the defendant had been ...... not to the facts underlying the prior convictions. The U.S. Supreme Court also has pointed out the utter impracticability of requiring a sentencing court to reconstruct, long after the original conviction, the conduct underlying that ...

    6. 6. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      Harrington v. Richter

      Overview: A judgment granting habeas relief was reversed because the California Supreme Court's decision on the merits of a habeas petitioner's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment required more deference than it had received. He was not entitled to the habeas relief ordered by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

      ... bars relitigation of any claim adjudicated on the merits in state court , subject only to the exceptions in § 2254(d)(1) and (d)(2) ...... a decision, which resulted from an adjudication. Determining whether a state court 's decision resulted from an unreasonable legal or factual conclusion does ...... does not require that there be an opinion from the state court explaining the state court's reasoning. A state court need not cite or even be aware of the U.S. Supreme Court cases under § 2254(d) . Where a state court 's decision is unaccompanied by an explanation, the habeas petitioner's burden ...... met by showing there was no reasonable basis for the state court to deny relief. This is so whether or not the state court reveals which of the elements in a multipart claim it found ...... Unreasonable Standard, Unreasonable Application Standards of Review, Deference HN8 A state court 's determination that a claim lacks merit precludes federal habeas relief ...... as fairminded jurists could disagree on the correctness of the state court 's decision. Evaluating whether a rule application was unreasonable requires considering ...... the rule's specificity. The more general the rule, the more leeway courts have in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations. It is not an ...

    7. 7. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

      Overview: Telephone and Internet service subscribers failed to state a claim against local exchange carriers for violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, since allegations of parallel anticompetitive conduct by the carriers, in the absence of plausible factual allegations of a preceding agreement, did not preclude identical and reasonable independent conduct.

      ... of Civil Procedure--all point unmistakably in the same direction, yet the Court marches resolutely the other way. Whether the Court 's actions will benefit only defendants in antitrust treble-damages cases, or ...... is a question that the future will answer. But that the Court has announced a significant new rule that does not even purport ...... proceed exclusively via allegations of parallel conduct, as both the District Court and Court of Appeals recognized. See 313 F. Supp. 2d 174 , 182 ...... our purposes, academic. Even if I were inclined to accept the Court's anachronistic dichotomy and ignore the complaint's actual allegations, I would dispute the Court 's suggestion that any inference of agreement from petitioners' parallel conduct ...... no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The Court vastly underestimates a district court's case-management arsenal. Before discovery even begins, the court may grant a defendant's ...... 130 F.2d 631 (1942) , which the Conley Court also cited in support of its "no set of facts" formulation. ...... diversity action the plaintiff alleged breach of contract, but the District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the contract appeared to be unenforceable under state law. The ...

      Reason for Shepard's Signal™

      Yellow - Caution level phrase Criticized by...

      245,107 Citing Decisions

      Most Cited Headnote:

      Sherman Act, Scope
      Shepardize®
    8. 8. Warning: Negative treatment is indicated

      Jackson v. Virginia

      Overview: In challenging his state murder conviction, an inmate was not entitled to habeas relief because a rational trier of fact could have found proof of the inmate's guilt of first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt under state law.

      ... v. Texas , 441 U.S. 418 . This Court's work load will also increase, of course, when its certiorari docket expands to accommodate the challenges generated by the Court's new rule. The effect will be even greater if the Court's opinion is read to require state appellate courts to apply the reasonable-doubt test on direct review and to require this Court to apply it when reviewing the decisions of those courts on certiorari. Because this task will confront the courts of appeals as well as district courts , it will surely impose countless additional hours of unproductive labor ...... Appeals, Standards of Review Habeas Corpus, Appeals HN7 A federal court has a duty to assess the historic facts when it is ...... apply a constitutional standard to a conviction obtained in a state court. For example, on direct review of a state-court conviction, where the claim is made that an involuntary confession was used against the defendant, the court reviews the facts to determine whether the confession was wrongly admitted ...

    9. 9. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Gregg v. Georgia

      Overview: The imposition of the sentence of death against defendant for the crime of murder under the law of Georgia did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

      ... (4) on automatic appeal of a death sentence, the state's highest court must determine whether the sentence was imposed under the influence of ...... a death sentence is affirmed, the decision of the state's highest court must include reference to similar cases that the court considered. [Per Stewart , J., Powell , J., ...... circumstance is found and a recommendation of death is made, the court shall sentence the defendant to death. Where a sentence of death is not recommended by the jury, the court shall sentence the defendant to imprisonment as provided by law. Unless ...... aggravating circumstance and recommends the death sentence in its verdict, the court shall not sentence the defendant to death, provided that no such ...... than that a challenged punishment be acceptable to contemporary society. The court also must ask whether it comports with the basic concept of ...... of human dignity at the core of the amendment. Although the court cannot invalidate a category of penalties because the court deem less severe penalties adequate to serve the ends of penology, ...... than that a challenged punishment be acceptable to contemporary society. The Court also must ask whether it comports with the basic concept of ...

    10. 10. Warning: Negative treatment is indicated

      Coleman v. Thompson

      Overview: A prisoner who defaulted on his federal claims in state court under a state procedural rule was barred from federal habeas review unless cause for default and actual prejudice was shown, or failure to consider the claims was miscarriage of justice.

      ... whether the asserted nonfederal ground independently and adequately supports the state- court judgment, (3) similarly, federal habeas corpus courts must ascertain for themselves if a petitioner is in custody pursuant to a state-court judgment that rests on independent and adequate state grounds, (4) although the Supreme Court , in exchange for a significant reduction in the costs of ...... the "fairly appears" factual predicate is applicable and where a state court does not plainly state that it is relying upon an independent ...... a broader presumption would place burdens upon the states and state courts in exchange for very little benefits to the federal courts, where (a) it is not clear whether, once such a broader presumption was announced, state courts would in fact provide the requisite clear and express statement of ...... claims is paid by the states rather than by the state courts, (b) such a broader presumption would put too great a burden on the state courts to use the requisite language in every case in which a ...... a state prisoner presented a federal claim, and (c) the federal courts would not save much work by applying the broader presumption. ( ...... unseemly in our dual system of government for a federal district court to upset a state ...

    11. 11. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Gall v. United States

      Overview: Appellate court erred in reversing sentence of probation imposed after defendant pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute drugs; requiring proportional justifications and extraordinary circumstances for departure was not consistent with Booker. Due deference was not given to reasonable decision that was justified by 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a)'s factors.

      ... Appellate court erred in reversing sentence of probation imposed after defendant pled guilty ...... withdrawing from the conspiracy, petitioner pled guilty to his participation. The court of appeals characterized the difference between the sentence of probation and ...... that the variance was not supported by extraordinary circumstances. Although the Court agreed that the court of appeals could take the degree of variance into account and ...... and consider the extent of a deviation from the Guidelines, the Court held that the court of appeals erred in requiring "extraordinary" circumstances. The court of appeals' rule requiring "proportional" justifications for departures was not consistent ...... deferential abuse-of-discretion standard that applied to review of sentencing decisions, the Court found that the court of appeals failed to give due deference to the district court 's reasoned and reasonable decision that the 18 U.S.C.S. § 3553(a) ...... which reversed and remanded the district court 's decision to sentence petitioner to probation for a term of ...... withdrawing from the conspiracy, petitioner pled guilty to his participation. The court of appeals characterized the difference between the sentence of probation and ...

      Reason for Shepard's Signal™

      Yellow - Caution level phrase Criticized by...

      16,527 Citing Decisions

      Most Cited Headnote:

      Sentencing, Sentencing Guidelines
      Shepardize®
    12. 12. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Strickland v. Washington

      Overview: Respondent's contention that his death sentence should have been overturned due to ineffective assistance of counsel was rejected as he failed to show that counsel's performance was deficient and prejudiced the defense.

      ... testimony but also on the same factors that led the state courts to find no prejudice, the District Court concluded that "there does not appear to be a likelihood, or ...... the sentencing proceeding. App. to Pet. for Cert. A285-A286. The District Court went on to reject all of respondent's other grounds for relief, including one not exhausted in state court, which the District Court considered because, among other reasons, the State urged its consideration. Id ., at A286-A292. The court accordingly denied the petition for a writ of habeas corpus....... J.), a majority of the judges of the en banc court agreed that the case should be remanded for application of the ...... standards. Summarily rejecting respondent's claims other than ineffectiveness of counsel, the court accordingly reversed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case. On remand, the court finally ruled, the state trial judge's testimony, though admissible "to the ...... not to have been the result of reasonable professional judgment. The court must then determine whether, in light of all the circumstances, the ...... wide range of professionally competent assistance. In making that determination, the court should keep in mind that counsel's function, as elaborated in prevailing ...

    13. 13. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs.

      Overview: Municipalities were not wholly immune from liability under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and could be sued for all types of relief where execution of a government policy inflicted the injury, but could not be liable on a respondeat superior theory.

      ... 429 U.S. 274 , 277-279 (1977) . Today, the Court abandons this long and consistent line of precedents, offering in justification ...... elaborate canvass of the same legislative history which was before the Court in 1961. Because I cannot agree that this Court is "free to disregard these precedents," which have been "considered maturely and recently" by this Court, Runyon v. McCrary , 427 U.S. 160...... constitutional adjudication because, in the former situation, Congress can correct the Court's mistakes through legislation, the Court has never applied stare decisis mechanically to prohibit overruling the Court 's earlier decisions determining the meaning of statutes. Although we have ...... that municipalities had been subjected to the jurisdiction of the federal courts in the context of suits to enforce their contracts, Cong. Globe, ...... and no property can be found to levy upon except the court-house, can we levy on the court -house and sell it? So this section provides, and that too ...... avoid circumvention of the immunity conferred by Monroe , the District Court held that natural persons sued in their official capacities as officers ...

    14. 14. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Miller-El v. Cockrell

      Overview: A certificate of appealability should have issued on inmate's habeas claim where he showed prosecutors disparately questioned African-American prospective jurors and peremptorily struck 91 percent of the eligible African-American venire members.

      ... Deference to trial court findings on the issue of discriminatory intent, in the context of ...... of the Equal Protection Clause , is necessary because a reviewing court, which analyzes only the transcripts from voir dire, is not as well positioned as the trial court is to make credibility determinations. If an appellate court accepts a trial court 's finding that a prosecutor's race-neutral explanation for his peremptory challenges ...... should be believed, it is hard to see how the appellate court nevertheless could find discrimination. The credibility of the prosecutor's explanation goes ...... to review. In the context of direct review, therefore, the trial court 's decision on the ultimate question of discriminatory intent represents a ...... appeal and will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. A federal court's collateral review of a state-court decision must be consistent with the respect due state courts in the federal system. Where 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 applies, habeas ...... a COA, an appeal may not be taken to a Federal Court of Appeals. As a result, until a COA has been issued, Courts of Appeals lack jurisdiction to rule on the merits of appeals from such habeas corpus petitioners. Moreover, when a Court of Appeals sidesteps the appropriate process by first deciding the merits of an appeal--and then justifying the ...

    15. 15. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Illinois v. Gates

      Overview: Traditional totality-of-the-circumstances test guided probable cause determinations for a search warrant based on a confidential informant's tip, and where the police later corroborated the facts of the informant's tip, the warrant could issue.

      ... 430 , 434 (1940) : "In cases coming here from state courts in which a state statute is assailed as unconstitutional, there are ...... refrain from deciding questions not presented or decided in the highest court of the state whose judicial action we are called upon to review. Apart from the reluctance with which every court should proceed to set aside legislation as unconstitutional on grounds not ...... not properly presented, due regard for the appropriate relationship of this Court to state courts requires us to decline to consider and decide questions affecting the ...... urged or considered there. It is for these reasons that this Court, where the constitutionality of a statute has been upheld in the state court, consistently refuses to consider any grounds of attack not raised or decided in that court." hardly applies when the question is whether a rule of federal law articulated by this Court should now be narrowed to reduce the scope of federal intrusion ...... Amendment . As a prudential matter, I am unmoved by the Court's lengthy discourse as to why it must avoid the question. First, the Court turns on its head the axiom that "'due regard for the appropriate relationship of this ...

    16. 16. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      Batson v. Kentucky

      Overview: Court overruled precedent requiring petitioner to prove prosecutor's pattern of systematic discrimination in jury selection. Conviction would be reversed if facts established prima facie case of purposeful discrimination and no neutral explanation.

      Court overruled precedent requiring petitioner to prove prosecutor's pattern of systematic discrimination ...... strike anyone for any reason. On appeal to the state supreme court , petitioner contended the facts established that the prosecution had engaged ...... discriminatory challenges, thus establishing an equal protection violation. The state supreme court affirmed the conviction. The Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, holding that if the trial court decided that the facts established prima facie, purposeful discrimination and that ...... neutral explanation for its actions, petitioner's conviction had be reversed. The Court overruled Swain v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 202 (1965)...... of an additional question, explaining that "it is hardly for this Court to 'second chair' the prosecutor to alter his strategy or guard him from mistakes. Under this Court's Rule 21.1(a), '[only] the questions set forth in the petition or fairly included therein will be considered by the Court .' Given petitioner's express disclaimer that [this] issue is presented, that ...... question obviously is not 'fairly included' in the question submitted. The Court 's direction that the parties address it anyway makes meaningless in ...... however strong his claim." 474 U.S., at 1052 . If the Court 's limited step of directing briefing on an additional point at ...

    17. 17. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      United States v. Booker

      Overview: Apprendi and Blakely were held applicable to the United States Sentencing Guidelines; the Guidelines were found to be effectively advisory rather than mandatory, and review of sentences was to be subject to an unreasonableness standard.

      ... violated the Sixth Amendment , vacated the judgment of the District Court, and remanded for resentencing. We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case. On remand, the District Court should impose a sentence in accordance with today's opinions, and, if the sentence comes before the Court of Appeals for review, the Court of Appeals should apply the review standards set forth in this opinion. [24] In respondent Fanfan's case, the District Court held ...... quasi-legislative power of the Commission with the judicial power of the courts . [The Commission's] powers are not united with the powers of ...... arise if the powers of the Commission were vested in a court, the Commission is not a court , does not exercise judicial power, and is not controlled by ...... excised--are rejected. (e) On remand in respondent Booker's case, the District Court should impose a sentence in accordance with today's opinions, and, if ...... if the sentence comes before the Seventh Circuit for review, that court should apply the review standards set forth in this Court 's remedial opinion. In respondent Fanfan's case, the Government (and Fanfan ...

    18. 18. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Apprendi v. New Jersey

      Overview: Enhancement of maximum sentence on the basis of racial bias was reversed because constitutional law required that a jury, on the basis of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, make the factual determination authorizing the sentence increase.

      ... sentences in whole or in part on the authority of the Court 's decision today. Statistics compiled by the United States Sentencing Commission ...... Guidelines since 1989. See Memorandum from U.S. Sentencing Commission to Supreme Court Library, dated June 8, 2000 (total number of cases sentenced under federal Sentencing Guidelines since 1989) (available in Clerk of Court 's case file). Federal cases constitute only the tip of the ...... of the total number of criminal prosecutions in federal and state courts. See National Center for State Courts, A National Perspective: Court Statistics Project (federal and state court filings, 1998), http://www.ncsc.dni.us/divisions/ research/csp/csp98-fscf.html (showing that, in 1998, 57,691 criminal cases were filed in federal court compared to 14,623,330 in state courts). Because many States, like ...... to a dissent by JUSTICE SCALIA on an issue that the Court itself had, a few sentences earlier, insisted "was neither considered by the state courts nor discussed in petitioner's brief before this Court ." 524 U.S. at 728 . Moreover, the sole citation supporting ...... and questioning its correctness). The Smith court's holding was somewhat unclear because the court did not state ...

    19. 19. Warning: Negative treatment is indicated

      Miranda v. Ariz.

      Overview: Before custodial interrogation, defendant must be warned that he has the right to remain silent and anything he says can be used against him, and he must be told he has the right to a lawyer; he may knowingly and intelligently waive these rights.

      ... interrogation are the product of compulsion, the rule propounded by the Court would still be irrational, for, apparently, it is only if the ...... without having his answer be a compelled one, how can the Court ever accept his negative answer to the question of whether he ...... he wants to consult his retained counsel or counsel whom the court will appoint? And why if counsel is present and the accused ...... situation any less coercive insofar as the accused is concerned? The Court apparently realizes its dilemma of foreclosing questioning without the necessary warnings ...... with No. 760, Vignera v. New York, on certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York and No. 761, Westover v. United States, on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, both argued February 28-March 1, ...... and No. 584, California v. Stewart, on certiorari to the Supreme Court of California, argued February 28-March 2, 1966. February 28, 1966 -March ...... the Court historically has done. Indeed, it is what it must do and ...

    20. 20. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      Williams v. Taylor

      Overview: In a federal habeas corpus action, the Supreme Court determined that petitioner's constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel was violated and that a state supreme court analyzed the ineffective-assistance claim under the wrong standard.

      ... statutory clauses, the Fourth Circuit held in Green that a state- court decision can be "contrary to" this Court's clearly established precedent in two ways. First, a state-court decision is contrary to this Court's precedent if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law. Second, a state-court decision is also contrary to this Court's precedent if the state court confronts facts that are materially indistinguishable from a relevant Supreme Court precedent and arrives at a result opposite to ours. See 143 ...... Supreme Court of the United States ." Under the "contrary to" clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court arrives at a conclusion opposite to that reached by this Court on a question of law or if the state court decides a case differently than this Court has on a set of materially indistinguishable facts. Under the "unreasonable application" clause, a federal habeas ...

    21. 21. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife

      Overview: Conservation organizations' motions for declaratory and injunctive relief under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 were improperly granted because they failed to prove the elements of causation and redressability, which were necessary for standing.

      ... conservation and other environmental organizations, filed an action in the District Court , seeking a declaratory judgment that the new regulation erred as ...... Interior to promulgate a new rule restoring his initial interpretation. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's dismissal of the suit for lack of standing. Upon remand, on cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court denied the Secretary's motion, which renewed his objection to standing, and ...... respondents' motion, ordering the Secretary to publish a new rule. The Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The judgment is reversed, and the case ...... with whom JUSTICE O'CONNOR joins, dissenting. I part company with the Court in this case in two respects. First, I believe that respondents ...... as to injury and as to redressability. Second, I question the Court's breadth of language in rejecting standing for "procedural" injuries. I fear the Court seeks to impose fresh limitations on the constitutional authority of Congress ...... on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts and whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control or to predict; and it becomes ...... on the unfettered choices made by independent actors not before the courts and whose exercise of broad and legitimate discretion the courts cannot presume either to control or to predict," ASARCO Inc. v. ...

    22. 22. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

      Overview: Partial summary judgment was reversed because court applied wrong standard in a libel suit brought by a limited purpose public figure; the clear and convincing evidence standard applied to a summary judgment as to whether actual malice existed.

      ... resemblance to what was originally spoken. In the present case, the Court purports to restate the summary judgment test, but with each repetition, ...... is increasingly distorted. But my concern is not only that the Court 's decision is unsupported; after all, unsupported views may nonetheless be ...... be supportable. I am more troubled by the fact that the Court's opinion sends conflicting signals to trial courts and reviewing courts which must deal with summary judgment motions on a day-to-day basis. This case is about a trial court's responsibility when considering a motion for summary judgment, but in my view, the Court , while instructing the trial judge to "consider" heightened evidentiary standards, ...... evidence is, or what a "fair-minded" jury could "reasonably" decide? The Court provides conflicting clues to these mysteries, which I fear can lead only to increased confusion in the district and appellate courts....... Partial summary judgment was reversed because court applied wrong standard in a libel suit brought by a limited ...... remanding the partial grant of petitioners' motion for summary judgment, the Court found that the court of appeals erred in holding that, for the purposes of summary ...... which could have been resolved in favor of either party, the Court held that the determination of whether a given factual dispute required ...

    23. 23. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

      Overview: In a wrongful death action, a manufacturer could have won summary judgment motion without introducing any evidence, as spouse of decedent produced no evidence of decedent's exposure to manufacturer's asbestos products, a key element of the complaint.

      ... to products containing asbestos that were manufactured by petitioner. The district court granted petitioner's summary judgment motion. The court of appeals reversed the district court , holding that petitioner's failure to support its motion with evidence ...... precluded the entry of summary judgment in its favor, and the court of appeals reinstated the suit. On appeal, court held that petitioner did not have to adduce affirmative evidence to disprove respondent's claim. The court held that under the court of appeals ruling, petitioner could have never been granted summary judgment ...... the burden should have rested on her. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed and the case was remanded because the court concluded that petitioner could have won a summary judgment motion without ...... This case requires the Court to determine whether Celotex satisfied its initial burden of production in ...... of her case at trial. I do not disagree with the Court's legal analysis. The Court clearly rejects the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the defendant must provide affirmative evidence disproving the plaintiff's case. Beyond this, however, the Court has not clearly explained what is required of a moving party ...

    24. 24. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Crawford v. Washington

      Overview: Defendant's right to confront witnesses was violated when his wife's statement during interrogation was admitted at trial, although the marital privilege precluded her testimony, since defendant had no opportunity to cross-examine her.

      ... confrontation have always been derived from the experience that some out-of- court statements are just as reliable as cross-examined in-court testimony due to the circumstances under which they were made. We ...... replicated, even if the declarant testifies to the same matters in court." United States v. Inadi, ...... the confrontation clause applied of its own force to only in- court testimony, and (b) the clause's application to out-of-court statements introduced at trial depended upon the law of evidence for the time being. Leaving the regulation of out-of-court statements to the law of evidence would have rendered the clause ...... At a trial, in a Washington state court, for assault and attempted murder, the court allowed the state to play for the jury a tape-recorded statement ...... interrogation, had described the accused's stabbing of the victim. The trial court concluded that the accused's Sixth Amendment right to be confronted with ...... was not upon Oath; and if a Man had been in Court and said the same Thing and had not sworn it, he had not been believed in a Court of Justice; for all Credit being derived from Attestation and Evidence, ...

    25. 25. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      Farmer v. Brennan

      Overview: Prison officials could not be found liable under the Eighth Amendment for denying an inmate humane conditions of confinement unless the officials knew of and disregarded an excessive risk to the inmate health or safety.

      ... (2) the court correctly rejected the plaintiff prisoner's theory of liability even under the ...... as within the scope of the Eighth Amendment ; (3) the court's opinion did not intimate that the courts below reached the wrong result; and (4) if, on remand, the Court of Appeals concludes that the District Court did not erroneously give dispositive weight to the prisoner's failure to ...... advance notice to the officials of the risk of harm, the Court of Appeals may summarily affirm the District Court 's summary judgment in favor of the officials. CRIMINAL LAW §78 ...... prison procedures and bring their health and safety concerns directly to court. An appeal to the equity jurisdiction conferred on federal district courts is an appeal to the sound discretion which guides the determinations of courts of equity, and any litigant making such an appeal must show ...... equity is required. When a prison inmate seeks injunctive relief, a court need not ignore the inmate's failure to take advantage of adequate ...... For these reasons, I concur in the Court's judgment. 2 I do not read the remand portion of the Court's opinion to intimate that the courts below reached the wrong result, ...

    26. 26. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.

      Overview: Summary judgment was improperly reversed in antirust conspiracy case because improper standard was applied; court relied on evidence that was irrelevant to alleged pricing conspiracy and failed to consider lack of motive to engage in predatory acts.

      ... American market in order to drive out American competitors. The district court granted summary judgment for petitioners, but the appellate court reversed based on its finding of direct evidence of concert of action. The Court granted certiorari to determine whether the court of appeals applied the proper standard in evaluating the summary judgment decision. The Court concluded that the court of appeals erred in two respects: First, the direct evidence on which the court of appeals relied had little, if any, relevance to the alleged predatory pricing conspiracy. Second, the court of appeals failed to consider the absence of a plausible motive ...... in predatory pricing. The decision was reversed and remanded for the court of appeals to consider any evidence that petitioners conspired to price ...... motive to do so. In the absence of such evidence, the Court instructed that petitioners were entitled to have summary judgment reinstated. The ...... summary judgment for petitioners was reversed and remanded based on the Court's holding that the court of appeals erred by relying on irrelevant evidence and failing to ...... discovery, petitioners moved for summary judgment on all claims. The District Court then directed the parties to file statements listing all the documentary ...

    27. 27. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Pearson v. Callahan

      Overview: Judgment denying qualified immunity to police officers was reversed because it was not clearly established at the time of a search that their conduct in relying on the consent-once-removed doctrine where an informant had been voluntarily admitted into a house was unconstitutional. The Saucier procedure was not an inflexible requirement.

      ... (2005) (en banc). Similar considerations may come into play when a court of appeals panel confronts a constitutional question that is pending before the court en banc or when a district court encounters a constitutional question that is before the court of appeals. A constitutional decision resting on an uncertain interpretation of ...... rules governing procedures and the admission of evidence in the trial courts , Saucier's two-step protocol did not affect the way in which ...... presumption that legislative changes should be left to Congress . The Court concluded that, while the Saucier sequence was often appropriate, it was ...... longer to be regarded as mandatory. The judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals were permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding ...... unavoidable. Turning to the conduct of the officers at issue, the Court held that they were entitled to qualified immunity because the entry ...... the sequence in which the issues must be discussed by a court in its opinion, the rule does not—and obviously cannot—specify the sequence ...... internal thought processes. Thus, there will be cases in which a court will rather quickly and easily decide that there was no violation ...

    28. 28. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      Estelle v. Gamble

      Overview: An inmate's claims against a prison physician were not cognizable under the Eighth Amendment because the inmate was seen on numerous occasions by medical personnel who treated his back injury and there were no allegations of deliberate indifference.

      ... by medical personnel on 17 occasions spanning a 3-month period. The Court reversed the court of appeals' judgment as to the medical director and remanded to the court of appeals to consider whether a cause of action had been stated against the other corrections officials. The Court reversed the court of appeals' decision reversing the district court 's dismissal of the inmate's complaint as to the physician, both ...... treating physician and as medical director of the corrections department. The Court remanded to the court of appeals to consider whether the inmate stated a cause of action against the other corrections officials. The Court reversed the court of appeals' decision reversing the district court 's dismissal of the inmate's complaint as to the physician, both ...... treating physician and as medical director of the corrections department. The Court remanded to the court of appeals to consider whether the inmate stated a cause of ...... The Court reversed the court of appeals' decision reversing the district court 's dismissal of the inmate's complaint as to the physician, both ...... treating physician and as medical director of the corrections department. The Court remanded to the court of appeals to consider whether the inmate stated ...

    29. 29. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Brady v. Maryland

      Overview: A judgment granting petitioner a new murder trial on the punishment issue only was affirmed where State's suppression of evidence favorable to petitioner violated due process. The newly discovered evidence was not admissible on the issue of guilt.

      ... protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is violated by a state court 's restricting to the question of punishment a new trial granted ...... of the prosecution's suppression of an accomplice's confession, where the state court ruled that nothing in the suppressed confession could have reduced the ...... under the law of the state this issue was for the court , not the jury, to determine. In separate trials in a ...... other of the homicide. On appeal the defendants attacked the trial court 's denial of a severance, and the State argued that neither ...... felony amounted to admission of guilt of felony murder. Nevertheless the Court of Appeals found an abuse of discretion and ordered separate new ...... The petition for post-conviction relief was dismissed by the trial court; and on appeal the Court of Appeals held that suppression of the evidence by the prosecution ...... postconviction proceedings -- construction of state court judgment. -- Headnote: [5] A statement in a state court judgment reversing the trial court 's dismissal of a prisoner's petition for postconviction relief and remanding ...

    30. 30. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc.

      Overview: EPA's interpretation of Clean Air Act permit requirements to allow states to treat all pollution-emitting devices within same industrial groupings as though encased within a single bubble was reasonable. Court gave deference to agency interpretation.

      ... in October. See id ., at 50766 . VII In this Court respondents expressly reject the basic rationale of the Court of Appeals' decision. That court viewed the statutory definition of the term "source" as sufficiently flexible ...... [7B] Judicial Review, Standards of Review HN3 The court need not conclude that the agency construction was the only one ...... have adopted to uphold the construction, or even the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding. The court need not conclude that the agency construction was the only one ...... have adopted to uphold the construction, or even the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a ...... that definition. Respondents do not defend the legal reasoning of the Court of Appeals. 7 Respondents argued below that EPA's plantwide definition of ...... legislative history, and purposes of the amended Clear Air Act. The court below rejected respondents' arguments based on the language and legislative history ...... by respondents here. Respondents rely on the arguments rejected by the Court of Appeals in support of the judgment, and may rely on ...

    31. 31. Warning: Negative treatment is indicated

      Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc.

      Overview: Admission of expert evidence based on recalculation of study data was reliable and admissible under federal evidence rules to show drug caused petitioners' birth defects; federal evidence rules superceded common law's standard for reliability.

      ... On certiorari to review a United States Court of Appeals judgment which upheld a United States District Court's ruling that proffered scientific evidence as to the alleged causation of birth defects was inadmissible, the United States Supreme Court will vacate the Court of Appeals' judgment and remand the case for further proceedings, where (1) the inquiries of the District Court and the Court of Appeals as to the admissibility of the evidence focused almost ...... "general acceptance," as gauged by publication and the decisions of other courts; and (2) the Supreme Court holds that general acceptance is not a necessary precondition to the ...... principles will satisfy those demands. [12] The inquiries of the District Court and the Court of Appeals focused almost exclusively on "general acceptance," as gauged by publication and the decisions of other courts. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further ...... I cannot subscribe to some of the observations made by the Court . In Part II-B, the ...

    32. 32. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Harlow v. Fitzgerald

      Overview: Executive governmental officials were entitled to qualified immunity that would be defeated if such officials knew or reasonably should have known that their actions violated respondent's constitutional rights.

      ... even as to acts wholly outside the legislative function. In this Court we witness the new filing of as many as 100 cases ...... of thousands of other cases are disposed of without reaching this Court. When we see the myriad irresponsible and frivolous cases regularly filed in American courts , the magnitude of the potential risks attending acceptance of public ...... our jurisdiction has been challenged on the basis that the District Court's order denying petitioners' claim of absolute immunity was not an appealable final order and that the Court of Appeals' dismissal of petitioners' appeal establishes that this case was never "in" the Court of Appeals within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § ...... law" should be "evaluated by reference to the opinions of this Court, of the Courts of Appeals, or of the local District Court ." If the law at that time was not clearly established, ...... there is an irreconcilable conflict between Gravel and Butz , the Court has an obligation to try to harmonize its holdings -- or at least tender a reasonable explanation. The ...

    33. 33. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Tex. Dep't of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine

      Overview: Appellate court erred by requiring employer to prove by a preponderance of the evidence existence of nondiscriminatory reasons for employee's termination and that the person retained instead had superior objective qualifications. Employer only bore burden of clearly explaining nondiscriminatory reasons for its actions.

      ... its progeny: it placed on petitioner the burden of persuading the court that it had convincing, objective reasons for preferring the chosen applicant ...... production will not unduly hinder the plaintiff. Pp. 256-258. (c) The Court of Appeals also erred in requiring petitioner to prove by objective ...... demonstrate that similarly situated employees were not treated equally, but the Court of Appeals' rule would require the employer to show that the ...... to those of the person selected, and if it cannot, a court would, in effect, conclude that it has discriminated. The Court of Appeals' views can also be read as requiring the employer ...... Accordingly, the court affirmed the District Court's finding that respondent was not discriminated against when she was not promoted. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the District Court 's finding that Fuller's testimony sufficiently had rebutted respondent's prima facie ...... discrimination in the decision to terminate her employment at PSC. The court reaffirmed its previously announced views that the defendant in a Title ...... those hired or promoted were better qualified than the plaintiff. The court found that Fuller's testimony did not carry either of these...

    34. 34. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Mathews v. Eldridge

      Overview: Social Security Administration could terminate disability benefits without first having an evidentiary hearing, as the procedures in place satisfied procedural due process requirements, given the lack of exigent circumstances for most recipients.

      ... Powell , J., expressing the view of six members of the court, it was held that (1) the District Court had jurisdiction over the action under 42 USCS 405(g) , which ...... to termination of his Social Security disability benefit payments. The district court had jurisdiction over the suit, because respondent had presented his claims ...... procedures available was significant, given the cost of additional procedures. The court reversed the lower court , because procedures in place were sufficient to satisfy due process, ...... was typically not as serious as that of welfare recipients. The court reversed the lower court , because procedures in place were sufficient to satisfy due process, ...... U.S. 208 , 212 (1972) , I agree with the District Court and the Court of Appeals that, prior to termination of benefits, Eldridge must be ...... Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S., at 96-97 , the Court said only that in a replevin suit between two private parties ...... determination required something more than an ex parte proceeding before a court clerk. Similarly, Bell v. Burson, supra, at 540...

    35. 35. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

      Overview: Where a former employee proved a prima facie case of racial discrimination by his employer, who showed a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for not rehiring him, the employee could show that the reason was used as a pretext for discrimination.

      ... contested the legality of his 1964 discharge by petitioner, but both courts held this claim barred by the statute of limitations. Respondent does not challenge those rulings here. The District Court dismissed the latter claim of racial discrimination in petitioner's hiring procedures ...... that a violation of that section had been committed. The District Court also found that petitioner's refusal to rehire respondent was based solely ...... illegal demonstrations and not on his legitimate civil rights activities. The court concluded that nothing in Title VII or § 704 protected "such ...... remanded the case to the District Court. In an opinion by Powell , J., expressing the unanimous views of the court , it was held that a Commission finding of reasonable cause ...... the plaintiff was pretextual or discriminatory in its application; and the court set forth standards somewhat different from those of the Court of Appeals with respect to the parties' burden of proof. CIVIL ...... race and his involvement in the civil rights movement. The Supreme Court affirmed the reversal of the dismissal of the § 703(a)(1) claim ...... violation of § 703(a)(1). In remanding the matter for trial, the court instructed the lower court on the order and allocation of proof for the employee's claim. The court found that the employee had presented a prima facie case of ...

    36. 36. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Terry v. Ohio

      Overview: Even though there was no probable cause to arrest defendant when officer made a "stop and frisk" warrantless intrusion that yielded weapon did not violate Fourth Amendment; officer had reasonable suspicion that defendant was about to commit robbery.

      ... a loaded pistol discovered during the frisk is admissible." After the court denied their motion to suppress, Chilton and Terry waived jury trial and pleaded not guilty. The court adjudged them guilty, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Judicial District, Cuyahoga County , affirmed. ...... J., also joined the court 's opinion upon the premise that once the officer was justified ...... followed automatically. White , J., likewise joined the opinion of the court, reserving judgment, however, on some of the court's general remarks about the scope and purpose of the exclusionary rule which the court has fashioned in the process of enforcing the Fourth Amendment . ...... courts did not rest the constitutionality of this frisk upon any general ...... to protect the citizenry, including himself, from dangerous weapons. The state courts held, instead, that when an officer is lawfully confronting a possibly ...... holding, with which I agree and with which I think the Court agrees, offers the only satisfactory basis I can think of for ...... has, however, two logical corollaries that I do not think the Court has fully expressed. In the first place, if the frisk is ...

    37. 37. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman

      Overview: To the extent respondent bar applicants challenged the Constitutionality of a specific rule of bar admissions, a district court did have subject matter jurisdiction over their complaint because no review of a final state-court judgment was required.

      ... Considerations Governing Review, State Court Decisions HN16 Lower federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state court decisions. If the constitutional claims presented to a United States district court are inextricably intertwined with a state court's denial in a judicial proceeding of a particular plaintiff's application for admission to a state bar, then the district court is in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision. This the district court may not do. "lower federal courts possess no power whatever to sit in direct review of state court decisions." ...... United States Supreme Court . 28 U.S.C.S. § 1257 . United States district courts, therefore, have subject-matter jurisdiction over general challenges to state bar rules, promulgated by state courts in nonjudicial proceedings, which do not require review of a final state-court judgment in a particular case. They do not have jurisdiction, however, over challenges to state-court decisions in particular cases ...

    38. 38. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Cheney v. United States Dist. Court

      Overview: Where the district court entered broad discovery orders against the Vice President and government officials, the appellate court prematurely terminated its writ of mandamus inquiry after the Vice President refused to assert executive privilege.

      ... joined by Souter , J., dissenting, expressed the view that the Court of Appeals' judgment should have been affirmed, for (1) the Court of Appeals had correctly concluded that it lacked ordinary appellate jurisdiction ...... all discovery, rather than moving for a reduction of the District Court's discovery orders to accommodate separation-of-powers concerns, and (b) nothing in the record intimated a lower-court refusal to reduce discovery; and (3) the District Court should have been allowed, in the first instance, to pursue the District Court 's expressed intention tightly to rein in discovery, if the Federal ...... MANDAMUS §26 -- petition by Vice President and others against federal court's discovery orders ...... mandamus, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1651(a) , against a lower federal court, federal constitutional separation-of-powers considerations should inform a Federal Court of Appeals' evaluation of a mandamus petition involving the President or ...... such purposes, accepted mandamus standards are broad enough to allow a Court of Appeals to prevent a lower court from interfering with a coequal branch's ability to discharge the branch's ...... where a particular civil case implicated the separation of powers, a Court of Appeals had to ask, as part of the mandamus inquiry, whether a Federal District Court 's actions constituted an unwarranted impairment of another branch in the ...

    39. 39. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court

      Overview: The district court, which had jurisdiction over respondent Kentucky court, had jurisdiction to consider petitioner Alabama prisoner's federal writ of habeas corpus, as petitioner's physical presence within the district was not required.

      ... indictment. The district court held that it was not barred from considering petitioner's application; however, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed on the grounds that petitioner was not within the territorial limits of the district court therefore no jurisdiction existed. Certiorari was granted to resolve a conflict among the federal courts on the choice of forum where a prisoner attacks an interstate detainer on federal habeas corpus. The court reversed the lower court's holding and ruled that the district court had jurisdiction to rule on petitioner's federal writ of habeas corpus, as the court was only required to have jurisdiction over respondent court . Furthermore, the habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2255 , ...... collateral attack on a federal sentence be filed in the sentencing court rather than the district court where a prisoner was confined....... authorizing writs of habeas corpus to be granted by the District Courts "within their respective jurisdictions," does not limit a District Court 's habeas corpus jurisdiction to cases where the prisoner seeking relief ...

    40. 40. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      County Court v. Allen

      Overview: Application of New York permissive statutory presumption that defendants, who occupied a car in which firearms were present, were in illegal possession of appealed the decision from weapons did not violate due process.

      ... defendants, who had been convicted of a crime in a state court on the basis of a statutory presumption, that application of the ...... asserted by the defendants in a habeas corpus proceeding in federal court after the claim, which initially had been raised in a post-trial ...... to set aside the verdict, had been rejected by the trial court, the state's intermediate appellate court, and the state's highest court--has not been rejected by the state courts on the basis of an independent and adequate state procedural ground, thus barring a federal court's consideration of the claim, where the state has no clear, applicable contemporaneous-objection policy which could bar a state court's consideration of the defendants' post-verdict claim, and the record shows that the prosecution never argued to any state court that a procedural default had occurred, that the state trial court ruled on the merits when it denied the defendants' motion to set aside the verdict, and that the state's highest court did not ignore the constitutional claim, but summarily rejected the claim ...

    41. 41. Warning: Negative treatment is indicated

      Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist.

      Overview: A federal court was not authorized to deny withdrawal and require an unwilling attorney to represent an indigent inmate in a civil rights case, as counsel was unfamiliar with the legal issues.

      ... which provides that court officers "shall" issue all process and that witnesses "shall" attend, (b) ...... , when it enacted 1915(d), of state statutes providing that a court could "assign" or "appoint" counsel to represent indigent litigants, and (c) ...... decision, either in a state having a statute providing that a court could "assign" or "appoint" counsel to represent indigent litigants or in ...... without compensation, and (3) the other federal statutes that authorized federal courts to provide counsel to litigants provided for courts to "assign" or "appoint" attorneys, rather than to "request" that they ...... proving that he was entitled to a writ of mandamus, the Court of Appeals had thus erred in denying his application for the ...... deny the attorney's motion to withdraw solely on 1915(d), the District Court had acted beyond its "jurisdiction," (2) the attorney had no available ...... remedy, and (3) neither the undesirable circumstance of making a District Court judge a litigant nor the inefficiency of piecemeal appellate litigation was ...

    42. 42. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court

      Overview: Where a construction subcontract dispute was filed in a forum different from that contained in a forum selection clause, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1406(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) were not proper mechanisms to enforce the forum selection clause, rather, 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) and the forum non conveniens doctrine provided appropriate enforcement mechanisms.

      ... to transfer under §1404(a) . . . calls on the district court to weigh in the balance a number of case-specific factors” and ...... will be a significant factor that figures centrally in the district court ’s calculus.” Id. , at 29, 108 S. Ct. 2239, 101 ...... analysis in three ways. Second, a court evaluating a defendant's § 1404(a) motion to transfer based on a ...... or their witnesses, or for their pursuit of the litigation. A court accordingly must deem the private-interest factors to weigh entirely in favor of the preselected forum. As a consequence, a district court may consider arguments about public-interest factors only. COURTS §632 TRANSFER -- FORUM-SELECTION CLAUSE -- APPLICABLE LAW ...... alternatively to transfer under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1404(a) . The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied the company's petition for a writ of mandamus. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari. Where a construction subcontract dispute was filed in a ...... intent that venue should always lie in some federal court whenever federal courts have personal jurisdiction over the defendant. See §1391(b)(3) . The conclusion also follows from this Court's decisions construing the federal venue statutes. See ...

    43. 43. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court

      Overview: State court's exercise of specific jurisdiction over nonresidents' claims against a pharmaceutical company violated the Fourteenth Amendment because there was no adequate link between the state and the non-residents' claims, particularly as they did not purchase or ingest the drug in the state and they were not injured by the drug in the state.

      ... lacked general jurisdiction. But the Court of Appeal went on to find that the California courts had specific jurisdiction over the claims brought by the nonresident plaintiffs. Affirming, the State Supreme Court applied a “sliding scale approach” to specific jurisdiction, concluding that ...... spurious form of general jurisdiction--is thus difficult to square with this Court's precedents. That court found specific jurisdiction without identifying any adequate link between the State ...... 187 L. Ed. 2d 624 (2014) . Today, the Court takes its first step toward a similar contraction of specific jurisdiction ...... nationwide course of conduct cannot be held accountable in a state court by a group of injured people unless all of those people ...... injured in the forum State. I fear the consequences of the Court ’s decision today will be substantial. The majority’s rule will make ...... make it impossible to bring a nationwide mass action in state court against defendants who ...... California Supreme Court affirmed. The court unanimously agreed with the Court of Appeal on the issue of general jurisdiction, but the court was divided on the question of specific jurisdiction. The majority applied ...

    44. 44. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal.

      Overview: A state court did not have jurisdiction over a foreign corporation that conducted no activities in the state and whose only contact with the state was that its component parts were used by another foreign corporation to make tires used in the state.

      ... respondent, who filed a cross-complaint for indemnity against petitioner. The trial court denied petitioner's motion to quash the service of summons, the appellate court reversed, and the state supreme court reversed the appellate court. On certiorari, the Supreme Court held that the mere fact that petitioner knew that some of ...... in 1979, a product liability suit was brought in California Superior Court arising from a motorcycle accident allegedly caused by defects in a ...... Although the main suit was eventually settled and dismissed, the Superior Court denied petitioner's motion to quash the summons issued against it. The State Court of Appeal then ordered that the summons be quashed, but the State Supreme Court reversed, finding that petitioner's intentional act of placing its assemblies into ...... them would eventually reach California , were sufficient to support state court jurisdiction under the ...... JUSTICE O'CONNOR announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the unanimous opinion of the Court with respect to Part I, the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II-B, in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE ...... 76180 (Super. Ct., Solano County, Cal. , Apr. 20, 1983). The Court of ...

    45. 45. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist.

      Overview: Class action defendants were not entitled to the extraordinary remedy of a mandamus to compel a court to vacate two discovery orders because defendants failed to show that there was no other remedy that could give them the necessary relief.

      ... issuance of writs of mandamus to compel respondent United States District Court for the Northern District of California to vacate two discovery orders. The court of appeals refused to issue the writs but directed that the ...... by the class plaintiffs in the underlying prisoners' rights action. The Court affirmed the denial of mandamus on the basis that mandamus was ...... an extraordinary writ that was only available in limited situations. The Court determined that mandamus was available where the party seeking issuance of ...... right to issuance of the writ was clear and indisputable. The Court determined that the procedure developed by the court of appeals to resolve the discovery issue was adequate for the ...... problem, and that the drastic remedy of mandamus was unnecessary. The Court affirmed the decision that denied mandamus....... hearing the case certified it to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as one appearing to require the convening of a three-judge court. The Chief Judge appointed the three members of the court on October 28, 1975, several days before oral argument was held ...... once again. This subsequent amendment made the convening of a three-judge court appear unnecessary and the three-judge court dissolved itself, remanding the entire case to the single judge originally ...

    46. 46. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      United States v. United States Dist. Court

      Overview: The President, acting through the Attorney General, did not have the power to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without judicial approval prior to electronic surveillance of defendant's conversations.

      ... of the President's power to protect the national security. The appellate court held, however, that the surveillance violated U.S. Const. amend. IV , ...... to defendant of his overheard conversations. Upon writ of certiorari, the court affirmed the appellate court decision. The court found that the government's concerns did not justify departure from the ...... judicial approval prior to initiation of a search or surveillance. The court held that prior judicial approval was required for the type of ...... made in accordance with such reasonable standards as Congress prescribed. The court affirmed a judgment of the appellate court holding that electronic surveillance of defendant's conversations without prior judicial approval ...... to make full disclosure to defendant of his overheard conversations. The court found that the government's security concerns did not justify departure from ...... internal security matters are too subtle and complex for judicial evaluation. Courts regularly deal with the most difficult issues of our society. There ...... or uncomprehending of the issues involved in domestic security cases. Certainly courts can recognize that domestic security surveillance involves different considerations from the ...

    47. 47. Questioned: Validity questioned by citing refs.

      Camara v. Municipal Court of San Francisco

      Overview: A warrant was required for an administrative search of an apartment for building code violations. Prosecution of an occupant for refusing a warrantless search by building inspectors was in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

      ... Appellant brought this action in a California Superior Court alleging that he was awaiting trial on a criminal charge of ...... and that a writ of prohibition should issue to the criminal court because the ordinance authorizing such inspections is unconstitutional on its face. The Superior Court denied the writ, the District Court of Appeal affirmed, and the Supreme Court of California denied a petition for hearing. Appellant properly raised and ...... v. Maryland , 359 U.S. 360 , this Court upheld, by a five-to-four vote, a state court conviction of a homeowner who refused to permit a municipal health ...... to the inspection. It appears from the opinion of the District Court of Appeal that under these circumstances a writ of prohibition will issue to the criminal court under California law. The judgment is vacated and the case is ...... for inspections, appellant while awaiting trial sued in a State Superior Court for a writ of prohibition, which the court denied. Relying on Frank v. Maryland , 359 U.S. 360...

    48. 48. Warning: Negative treatment is indicated

      Brown v. Allen

      Overview: State prisoners' writs of habeas corpus were properly denied because no violation of the constitution resulted from state proceedings, including a state court's refusal to review their petitions after the prisoners failed to preserve their appeal.

      ... I cannot protest too strongly against affirming a decision of the Court of Appeals patently based on the ground that that court was foreclosed on procedural grounds from considering the merits of constitutional claims, when we now decide that the court was wrong in believing that it was so foreclosed. The affirmance by this Court of the District Court's denial of writs of habeas corpus in these cases is all the more vulnerable in that this Court, without guidance from the Court of Appeals, proceeds to consider the merits of the constitutional claim. This Court concludes that there was not a systematic discrimination in keeping Negroes off juries. If this Court deemed it necessary to consider the merits, the merits should equally have been open to the Court of Appeals. As I have already indicated, that court is far better situated than we are to assess the circumstances ...... Court would prejudice their cases or perhaps a feeling that it is ...

    49. 49. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Alden v. Me.

      Overview: When the State of Maine asserted its immunity from a Fair Labor Standards Act suit, the question was not the primacy of federal law, but the implementation of the law in a manner consistent with the constitutional sovereignty of the states.

      ... may declare federal law binding and enforceable in state courts the further principle that Congress ' authority to pursue federal objectives through state courts exceeds not only its power to press other branches of the ...... the State into its service but also its control over federal courts. The constitutional provisions upon which this Court has relied in finding state courts peculiarly amendable to federal command, moreover, do not distinguish those courts from the Federal Judiciary. No constitutional precept would admit of a congressional power to require state courts to entertain federal suits which are not within the United States' judicial power and could not be heard in federal courts. Pp. 39-46. 3. A State's constitutional privilege to assert its sovereign immunity in its own courts does not confer upon the State a concomitant right to disregard ...... in federal court . Petitioners alleged that respondent violated the overtime provisions of the ...... seq. , and they sought compensation and liquidated damages. The district court dismissed petitioners' action, and the court of appeals and the state supreme court affirmed. The ...

    50. 50. Caution: Possible negative treatment is indicated

      Chambers v. NASCO, Inc.

      Overview: Where a seller acted in bad faith in delaying and complicating the issues at trial in a contract case, the court did not abuse its discretion in assessing as a sanction for the seller the entire amount of the purchaser's attorney fees and expenses.

      ... bad faith -- Headnote: [13A] [13B] In narrowly defined circumstances, federal courts have inherent power to assess attorneys' fees against counsel, even though ...... in most cases; the "common fund" exception--which derives not from a court's power to control litigants, but from its historic equity jurisdiction--allows a federal court to award attorneys' fees to a party whose litigation efforts directly benefit others; a federal court may properly assess attorneys' fees as a sanction for the willful disobedience of a court order; a federal court's discretion to determine the degree of punishment for contempt permits the court to impose as part of the fine attorneys' fees representing the entire cost of the litigation; in addition, a court may properly assess attorneys' fees when a party has acted in ...... vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons; in this regard, if a court finds that fraud has been practiced upon it, the court may properly assess attorneys' fees against the responsible party, as it ...... delaying or disrupting the litigation or by hampering enforcement of a court order; the imposition of sanctions in this instance (1) transcends a court's equitable power concerning relations between the parties and reaches a court 's inherent power to police itself, and thus (2) serves the ...

    Searches related to court